Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:38:56 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r266760 - head/contrib/bmake Message-ID: <53908F10.20204@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <538FE18E.7050101@freebsd.org> References: <201405271839.s4RIdDq8055387@svn.freebsd.org> <538D1DB7.7010508@FreeBSD.org> <20140603044638.81DF6580A1@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140603063512.GB45150@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAF6rxgnNLGWtGJwUY9E-MquqrOaU221QXjcow-sKCJLo4hxuLQ@mail.gmail.com> <538F3918.6040002@FreeBSD.org> <538FE18E.7050101@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed Jun 4 22:18:38 2014, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 6/4/14, 11:19 PM, Drewery, Bryan wrote: >> On 6/4/14, 2:26 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> On 2 June 2014 23:35, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:46:38PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:58:31 -0500, Bryan Drewery writes: >>>>>> Not sure if anyone cares, but this change breaks all ports tree >>>>>> checkouts from before 2014-05-05 on src head with this revision. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, an older ports tree would need an older bmake (or fmake). >>>>> Are we saying ports is *not* ready for that hack to be removed? >>>>> >>>> >>>> IMHO it is, just people has to be aware of that :) >>> >>> ports-announce@ is the correct location for this announcement :) >>> >> >> I think that would just confuse people. I don't think this is worthy >> of such a big announcement. I can write up something to current@ and >> ports@ though. It's really only an issue if you are trying to use >> older ports tree and why would you anyway in most cases? >> > We have a scenario where we check out a ports tree at one revision, > but then need to slide parts of it back and forth to get to a specific > revision of a port that we need. We can not affort to re-verrify every > port revision every month, so it stays at an old revision generally > but individual ports my upgrade if there is a security risk or may > remain on anold revision if a newer version breaks thins for us. (it > happens). > > If that breaks we will not be happy Are you running head base though and frequently updating? I too use an older ports tree in various places, but not following head enough where it matters much. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53908F10.20204>